

THE RECORDS OF ASSIGNMENTS 

OF 

PATENT PROPERTY 

And their relation to the prosecution and examination 
of applications for patent. 


A paper read May 28, 1914, before the Examining Corps 
of the United States Patent Office 


by 


WILLIS B. MAGRUDER, 
Chief of Assignment Division, 
U. S. Patent Office. 


Copyrighted Cl. A 373,759 
June 10, 1914. 














« 














} 


t 


$ 











-n 















Assignments of Patents 

Section 4898 of the Revised Statutes provides that: 

“Every patent or any interest therein shall be 
assignable in law by an instrument in writing; 
and the patentee or his assigns or legal representa¬ 
tives may, in like manner, grant and convey an 
exclusive right under his patent to the whole or 
any specified part of the United States. An as¬ 
signment, grant or conveyance shall be void as 
against any subsequent purchaser or mortgagee 
for a valuable consideration, without notice, unless 
it is recorded in the Patent Office within three 
months from the date thereof.” 

RECORD BOOKS. 

In order to comply with said law the Patent Office has 
provided books for s the record of such assignments as 
may be presented, and the assignment records of the 
Patent Office are intact from 1837 to the present date. 
In 1836 the entire records of the Patent Office were de¬ 
stroyed in a fire, and that is the reason why the records 
of assignments prior to 1837 are not in existence. 

The books provided for the record of assignments are 
designated “Transfers of Patents,” and contain 500 pages 
each, in alphabetical series, numbered from 1 to 94, and 
therefore the designation where an instrument is record¬ 
ed is referred to by letter and number, as, for example, 
Liber H 77; W 76; or A 75, etc. 

Since 1837 to the present date there are over 2470 of 
these record books. It would therefore be an endless 
task to make a search of these volumes to ascertain the 
title to a patent; so it was necessary to have a separate 
index in which searches could be readily made, and 
such books were provided and designated “Digest of 
Assignments,” in which there is an index of each instru¬ 
ment under the name of the inventor only, and conse¬ 
quently it is necessary to know the name of the inventor 
of the particular patent, application or invention under 
which a search is to be made, in order to make such a 
search. 


4 


INDEXING AND BRIEFING. 

Prior to 1870 these indexes were made from party to 
party, as are records of transfers of realty, but it was 
found that if any particular paper in a chain of title was 
not recorded, all subsequent assignments under the same 
patent were lost in making a search. Therefore in 1870 
a special appropriation was obtained from Congress that 
new indexes might be made under the name of the 
inventor , and such indexes and digests were made by 
the clerks of the Patent Office working outside of Office 
hours, and in due time a full set of digests were made 
and were accessible to the public for searches, and said 
system of indexing under the name of the inventor has 
been carried out to the present date. 

These digests contain the name of the inventor; the 
assignor or the party who gives or grants the rights in 
the assignment; the assignee, purchaser or beneficiary 
in the assignment; the date of the writing; the date of 
its record; the description or identification of the inven¬ 
tion, application or patent transferred which is recited in 
the assignment itself; a brief description or digest of 
the interests or rights transferred; designation where 
the same is fully recorded; when the original was re¬ 
turned, and to whom. This digest is particularly full 
and clear, being a brief description of the essentials of 
the instrument, so that one searching the records may 
find spread upon such digest a condensed description of 
the writing. 

Digesting is one of the important branches of the 
work done in the Patent Office and its value is inestima¬ 
ble. Into this work enter analysis, analogy, logic, com¬ 
mon sense and office precedent. There are no written 
rules in making these digests, the deeds being so diverse 
as to render rules of little value. Years ago the digest¬ 
ing was done in a most informal manner, being little 
more than an index, but for many years past, and espec¬ 
ially since the inauguration of a new system in 1898, 
of briefing on sheets preparatory to revision, alteration 
and copying into the Digest books, it would be difficult 
to find a more concise, correct and accessible record and 
index from which searches can be made. 

These briefs are copied to form certified “Abstracts 
of Title” for use in the courts, and are constantly being 


5 


searched by attorneys and others interested in patents, 
and without the “Digest of Assignments” their work 
would be not only difficult and voluminous, but the ex¬ 
pense thereof would be very largely increased. 

At the present time there are 478 of such Digests of 
Assignments. They are separated alphabetically in the 
26 letters of the alphabet, to contain briefs of deeds un¬ 
der the initial letter of the surname of the inventor. Con¬ 
sequently in making a search you would ask for the books 
under the initial of surname, from a certain date, at 
least two years prior to the date of filing the application 
for the patent, to cover the term that the application may 
have been pending and to obtain access to any assign¬ 
ments recorded prior thereto. In each of these volumes 
is a separate and detachable index, and this index is made 
under the given names of the inventor, and under the 
first vowel of the surname. 

SEARCHING. 

If it be desired to ascertain whether any assignments 
under the name of John Wesley Richardson are of record, 
you obtain the books labeled R, turn to the index of first 
name, in this search under the letter J and you will find 
thereunder the combinations Ra, Re, Ri, Ro, Ru, and Ry, 
so that it is only necessary in making the search for the 
name of John Wesley Richardson to look under the com¬ 
bination Ri, and if there be any assignments in that vol¬ 
ume under said inventor's name, the number of the page 
will be opposite his name, and if the name John Wesley 
Richardson does not appear in this combination it is cer¬ 
tain that no assignments from him or under his patents 
are of record in said book. Surnames beginning with a 
vowel and having no other vowel are indexed as if the 
initial stood for the first letter of the surname and also 
as the vowel, as, for example, Erp, Olds, etc. will be 
found in the combination E-e, O-o, respectively. 

It will be apparent that searches are by this system 
of indexing materially shortened, and that the informa¬ 
tion sought is particularly accessible. 

Under the system of indexing only under the name 
of the inventor, instruments from an assignee to a third 
assignee, and from said party to others, will be found 
under the name of the inventor, and not from party to 
party, as before mentioned. 


6 


Following the regular index of names of sole invent¬ 
ors there is found an index of joint inventors , together 
with names of firms and corporations that are registrants 
of trade-marks, labels or prints. 

Under this system of indexing it is a prerequisite 
that each deed recite specifically the full name of the 
inventor or registrant of each invention, application, pat¬ 
ent, design, trade-mark, label or print affected by said 
writing, that a definite index may be made under each 
name; but frequently a deed that should be recorded 
fails to contain such identification, for instance, a deed 
from' a company of all its patents, etc., without enumer¬ 
ating same. 

This situation necessitated a special index for such 
papers, and therefore additional indexes were prepared 
and designated “Irregular Transfers.” 

Instruments that do not recite the name of the inven¬ 
tor or registrant, or for other reasons are irregular, are 
indexed, among the “Irregular Transfers,” under the 
name of each person, firm, corporation or court, etc., 
named in instrument, and in making searches it is there¬ 
fore necessary to continue the search in this index of 
“Irregular Transfers” under the names of all parties 
that are found in the search among the regular deeds, 
in order to have access to such unidentified deeds as may 
have been made and recorded by any of the owners dis¬ 
closed by the search. 

There are of record in the Assignment Division of the 
Patent Office all sorts of instruments in relation to the 
title to inventions, applications, patents, designs, trade¬ 
marks, labels and prints; such as assignments, licenses, 
agreements, liens, mortgages, ^hoprights, decrees of 
court in relation to title, and other papers. It can be 
readily appreciated that from such a variety of writings 
there are a number of very informal writings presented 
for record, and much difficulty is experienced in intelli¬ 
gently spreading such instruments upon the digest of 
assignments, so that searches therein may disclose all 
papers that might in any way affect or relate to the sub¬ 
ject matter of the search. 

Searches among these records should be made by the 
examiners when applications are formally abandoned 


7 


and when interferences are declared, to ascertain in the 
former case whether or not the consent to abandonment 
by an assignee is necessary; and in the latter case to as¬ 
certain the address of assignee, to whom notices of inter¬ 
ference may be mailed. It frequently occurs that the 
recorded assignment does not recite the special address 
of the assignee and in such cases letters should be ad¬ 
dressed to assignee in care of the attorney who forward¬ 
ed the assignment for record. 

IDENTIFICATION AND PROPORTION ASSIGNED. 

The inquiry has often been made why there cannot 
be an index under the numbers of the patents, as there is 
in most all other record offices in plat books, so that a 
person might at once see who owns a particular patent; 
but the answer to this question is that there are of record 
in the Office many instruments that may affect title indi¬ 
rectly or equitably, but do not specifically refer directly 
thereto. It is a common practice for inventors prepara¬ 
tory to even making an application for patent for their 
inventions, to solicit and obtain the aid of capitalists, and 
to secure the latter there is drawn an agreement or a 
transfer that the whole or a certain portion of said in¬ 
vention, after it becomes a patent, will be, or is transfer¬ 
red to the party furnishing the money to develop the in¬ 
vention. 

It will be apparent that at this time no identification 
of the invention is possible, inasmuch as the invention is 
probably only in the mind of the inventor* and has not 
even yet been reduced to writing in order to apply for 
a patent, and therefore there is no data or other means 
of referring to the invention except by its mere name. 
If such an instrument be found of record the courts might 
hold that it would be at least a lien or an equitable trans¬ 
fer of the invention that may become a patent, but should 
a patent be granted such an instrument would be in the 
nature of an executory contract and the party who has 
put up the money for the development of the invention, 
if denied a legal deed, has the right to go into court, if 
necessary, and compel a legal transfer from the inventor. 
In a number of transfers in which an inventor assigns a 
particular patent or application, specifically identifying 
same, there is also transferred “all improvements that I 
may make thereon’' or “all improvements which I may 


8 


make in the same class of invention.” This has been 
construed to grant at least an equitable interest in any 
further or future inventions that the inventor may make, 
and in making searches under a particular patent such 
writings as above must be taken into consideration and 
weighed, in order that the rights of the parties men¬ 
tioned may be determined. 

Experience in the Assignment Division of the Patent 
Office has made me appreciate the extreme carelessness 
displayed in drawing up instruments in writing affecting 
the title to patents or applications. In fact some of the 
papers presented for record show evidence of almost, I 
might say, criminal carelessness. No sane person in 
drawing up a deed of real estate would fail to recite the 
metes and bounds of the property, as that would seem 
to be the first essential, but many instruments are pre¬ 
sented for record in the Patent Office that have no iden¬ 
tification whatever. It will be appreciated what an as¬ 
signment would amount to for instance, if Thomas A. 
Edison should transfer an electrical invention “for which 
I am about to make application” without any other iden¬ 
tification, inasmuch as Mr. Edison is a prolific inventor, 
having filed many applications and obtained many pat¬ 
ents for improvements in electrical subjects. 

Identification of the application or patent transferred 
is of the utmost importance. The rules provide that if 
the assignment be dated subsequently to the application, 
the assignment must identify the application by date of 
execution, date of filing or serial number of the applica¬ 
tion, “so that there can be no mistake as to the particu¬ 
lar invention intended' ’—Rule 26. 

If the application and assignment be executed on the 
same date, the assignment should identify the applica¬ 
tion as “executed of even date herewith,” that there 
may be certainty as to the particular invention and appli¬ 
cation affected. 

If more than one application for the same class of in¬ 
vention be executed upon the same date, care should be 
exercised to designate each by some arbitrary symbol, 
that each may be perfectly identified if it be desired to 
assign either of them. Such applications may be des¬ 
ignated by letters, as, for example, “Case A,” “Case B,” 


9 


“Case C,” etc., or by numerals, as, for example, “Case 1,” 
“Case 2,” etc. 

In the decision Ex Parte Williamson, 88 Official Ga¬ 
zette, 2065, the Commissioner says: 

“It is possible that the assignment mentioned 
above has reference to the invention covered by 
application No. —; but there is no certainty of 
this, and in such matters the Office requires cer¬ 
tainty and not mere probability to justify its ac¬ 
tion.” 

The proportion of interest transferred should also be 
carefully and correctly recited. If an inventor has trans¬ 
ferred a part of his interest to one party and desires to 
sell to another party a part interest, the propor¬ 
tion to each should be designated as a certain part of 
the whole and entire interest, rather than as a portion of 
“my interest.” 

If two transfers, dated on the same date, sell to each 
of two parties “one-quarter of my right, title and inter¬ 
est,” it cannot be determined which writing was first 
executed, thereby transferring one-quarter of the whole 
interest, or which was thereafter executed, thereby trans¬ 
ferring one-quarter of the remaining interest. If each 
writing transferred “one-quarter of the entire right , 
title and interest” the proportion assigned to each would 
be definite. „ 

REQUEST TO ISSUE PATENT TO ASSIGNEE. 

A number of decisions hold that an assignment of an 
unpatented invention which fails to make a request that 
should a patent be granted upon the application trans¬ 
ferred, it issue to the assignee for his interest, is merely 
an executory contract and does not transfer legal title. 

In the decision Harrison v. Morton, Court of Appeals 
of Maryland, 83 Md. 476; 76 Official Gazette, 1275, before 
Judges McSherry, Bryan, Page, Russum, Boyd and Fow¬ 
ler; Judge Fowler says: 

“It follows from what Chief Justice Taney says 
in Gaylor vs. Wilder (10 How. 480), that prior to 
the issue of Letters Patent to the inventor he has 
an imperfect inchoate right to its use, which he 


10 


may perfect and make absolute by taking the steps 
required by law, and especially by having Letters 
Patent issued to him; or he may by an assignment 
of this inchoate right, coupled with a request to 
issue letters to his assignee in compliance with 
Rule 26 of the Patent Office, transfer to such as¬ 
signee a legal title to such invention. The legal 
title passes to the assignee under such an assign¬ 
ment, because he has under it, as the inventor had 
by law, the right to secure letters in his own name. 
But the only way in which such letters, which 
are the evidence of a perfect legal title, can be 
secured by the assignee, is by request of the in¬ 
ventor first, and of his assignees, as the case may 
be, expressed in the assignment * * * The 

general rule seems to be that an assignment with¬ 
out request conveys only an equitable title. ” 
Therefore in all assignments of pending applications 
it would seem to be absolutely necessary that the writing 
contain a request that the Commissioner of Patents issue 
any patent that might be granted thereon, to the assignee 
for his interest. About seven out of ten assignments 
presented for record contain such a request, and when 
the patents are granted upon applications, the assign¬ 
ments whereof do not contain such a request, there is 
invariably a complaint that the patent has not issued to 
the assignee, but such complaint is too late, inasmuch as 
the rules provide that the request must be “embodied in 
the assignment,” which assignment must be recorded in 
the Patent Office before or at a date not later than that 
on which the final fee in the application is paid, in order 
to have the patent issue to the assignee. 

In the past year or two the Courts have held that when 
a patent is granted it vests in the assignee, although it 
may be issued in the name of the inventor, and it is not 
essential to such vesting of the title that the assignment 
shall contain a request to the Commissioner of Patents 
that the patent issue to the assignee. These decisions are 
Wende vs. Horine, reported in 191 Federal Reporter, 
page 620; and Hildreth vs. Auerbach et al, reported in 
200 Federal Reporter, page 972. 

The Office, however, has not followed these decisions 
in the granting of patents owing to Rule 26 which has 
not been abrogated or modified. The rule provides that 


11 


“the patent will, upon request of the applicant , embodied 
in the assignment , issue to the assignee; and if the as¬ 
signee hold an undivided part interest, the patent will, 
upon like request, issue jointly to the inventor and the 
assignee; but the assignment in either case must first 
have been entered of record, and at a date not later than 
the date of the payment of the final fee.” 

Such request in an assignment, to issue to the assignee, 
or the lack of such request, is an important matter in the 
prosecution of an application where the assignee inter¬ 
venes in such prosecution. 

The assignee of an entire interest in the invention may 
not revoke a power of attorney given by the applicant and 
appoint one of his own selection where the assignment 
does not request that the patent issue to said assignee. 
Such an assignment conveys merely an equitable and not 
a legal title. This holding is in the Commissioner’s de¬ 
cision Ex Parte Stanford, Dec. 1908, 138 0. G., 527. 

In the decision In Re Wetmore and Jenner, 155 0. G., 
799 the administratrix of a deceased applicant was held 
to be entitled to control the prosecution of the applica¬ 
tion to the exclusion of the assignee, where the assign¬ 
ment did not contain a request that the patent issue to 
the assignee, notwithstanding the fact that the peti¬ 
tion accompanying the application contained such a 
request. 

FORM OF ASSIGNMENT. 

A great many assignments are filled out on printed 
forms, and frequently an instrument is presented in 
which it is attempted to transfer a pending application 
by altering a blank form intended for the transfer of a 
patent, and some of such attempts in changing the 
phraseology of the writing, or in filling blanks, are ludi¬ 
crous. In the Office Rules there are certain suggestive 
forms for assignments, but even these are not properly 
followed, and there appear of record among the assign¬ 
ment records some instruments that if taken into court, 
would receive little consideration. Inasmuch as the law 
does not provide a particular form for assignments, the 
Office cannot control the same, and has no authority to 
withhold them from record, or criticise writings except 
as a matter of courtesy, which sometimes is resented. 


12 


Of course in assignments of applications where there 
is a request to issue, the Commissioner of Patents is au¬ 
thorized to withhold the assignment from record and re¬ 
quire certain identification or the correction of informal¬ 
ities therein, inasmuch as he is requested to act thereon 
in the issuance of the patent; but in deeds for patents 
he has no such authority, and consequently very many 
instruments are spread upon the assignment records of 
the Patent Office which are utterly worthless, owing to 
lack of identification of patents affected. 

CONFLICTING ASSIGNMENTS. 

Where there are conflicting legal assignments of rec¬ 
ord under a particular application, the ^senior assignee 
is, under the practice of the Office, allowed to intervene 
in the prosecution of the application, (Sparkes v. Small, 
113 0. G. 1970) but should such case terminate in a pat¬ 
ent said patent would issue to the inventor “his heirs 
or assigns,” that the courts might determine between 
the contesting parties the ownership of the patent 
{In Re Moller, 108 0. G., 2144). It is therefore ques¬ 
tionable as to the proper practice of recording assign¬ 
ments of pending applications. 

RELATION OF ASSIGNMENTS TO APPLICATIONS. 

What then is the relation existing between the assign¬ 
ment records and the examination of applications and 
the granting of patents thereon? The law, the rules of 
practice and many decisions make such relationship very 
close and intimate. Section 4895 Revised Statutes pro¬ 
vides that “patents may be granted and issued or re¬ 
issued to the assignee of the inventor or discoverer; but 
the assignment must first be entered of record in the 
Patent Office,” and this section taken in connection with 
Section 4916 of the Revised Statutes, providing for the 
reissuing of letters patent “to the patentee, or in case of 
his death or of an assignment of the whole or any undi¬ 
vided part of the original patent, then to his executors, 
administrators, or assigns for the unexpired part of the 
term of the original patent” necessitates a careful exam¬ 
ination of the assignment records in the prosecution of 
applications, and especially of reissue applications. These 
two statutes devolve upon the Office the responsibility 


13 


of issuing patents and re-issuing patents to the legal 
representatives, or to the assigns of the inventor. 

ABSTRACTS OF TITLE. 

Rule 86 of the Rules of Practice requires that a re-issue 
application must be accompanied by “an order for a cer¬ 
tified copy of the abstract of title to be placed in the 
file, giving the names of all assignees owning an undi¬ 
vided interest in the patent. In case the application be 
made by the inventor it must be accompanied by the 
written assent of such assignees.” If there be not filed 
with the application an abstract of title as Required by 
Rule 86 the first action in the examination of the reissue 
application should therefore be to require the filing of 
such abstract, to ascertain if there be an assignee in the 
patent, and to require the assent of such assignee if the 
same be not already in the petition. 

Frequently when reissues are granted and the files 
are forwarded to the Assignment Division for final exam¬ 
ination and for the purpose of continuing the abstract 
of title to date, it is noted that the abstract of title has 
never been ordered nor filed with the application, also 
that the assent of the assignee is not in the file, necessi¬ 
tating the return of the application to the examiner and 
further delay, that these requirements may be fulfilled. 

ADMINISTRATORS AND EXECUTORS. 

Prior to 1909 when an inventor died during the pend¬ 
ency of his application, the practice required that a cer¬ 
tified copy of Letters of Administration or Letters Testa¬ 
mentary be filed in each of decedent’s applications pend¬ 
ing before the Office. On January 20th, 1909 Order 1792 
(reported in 138 0. G., 970) was issued requiring the 
filing in the application or the recording in the assign¬ 
ment records of the authority of the administrator or 
executor to intervene in the prosecution of the applica¬ 
tion, such authority being evidenced by a certified copy 
of Letters of Administration or Letters Testamentary; 
and for uniformity of practice the Chief of the Assign¬ 
ment Division was charged with the duty of passing 
upon the sufficiency of such authority. 


14 


On October 22nd, 1909, the above order was modified 
by Order 1827 (reported in 148 0. G., 837) requiring 
that such authority “ shall in all cases be recorded in the 
assignment records of this Office,'’ and also providing 
that a reference to this record should be placed in each 
application involved. 

Under date of January 13th, 1910, Order 1838 (re¬ 
ported in 151 0. G., 453) was issued, modifying the two 
previous orders, providing that “the examiner will require 
the recording in the Assignment Division of a certifi¬ 
cate of such appointment, or a certified copy of Letters 
Testamentary or Letters of Administration in each case 
before finally passing the case to issue;” and under date 
of October 14th, 1913, Order 2076 (reported in 195 O. 
G., 543) provided that the “allowance of the application 
will not be withheld nor the application withdrawn from 
issue if the executor or administrator does not inter¬ 
vene; modifying Order 1838. 

It will be apparent that when an executor or adminis¬ 
trator intervenes in the prosecution of an application, 
or when it is suggested that the inventor is dead, the 
assignment records should be examined and if the proper 
authority of the representative of decedent be not found 
the examiner should require the recording of the proper 
authority of such representative, so that the patent when 
issued would issue to the executor or administrator, or 
his assigns, and that such representative might ratify 
the actions in the case by the attorney after the death 
of the applicant. 

DIVISIONAL APPLICATIONS, ETC. 

Reissue applications, renewal applications, divisional 
applications, refiled applications, substitute applications 
and continuation applications are all controlled in own¬ 
ership by the assignment of the original or parent case. 
As far back as 1887 it was established by the Court 
decision Puetz vs. Bransford, 39 0. G., 1083, that: 

“An assignment before application for letters 
patent ‘of the full and exclusive right to the in¬ 
vention as fully set forth in the specification’ car- 


15 


ries with it whatever patents may issue upon the 
divisions of the application required by the rules 
of the Patent Office.” 

If a parent case be assigned the renewal, refiled, sub¬ 
stitute or continuation applications are also affected by 
said assignment, as the invention is owned by the as¬ 
signee of the parent case. In the case of renewals the orig¬ 
inal file wrapper in each case is used, and as the as¬ 
signee^ name appears indorsed thereon it is only neces¬ 
sary to verify such indorsement with the assignment 
records; but in the case of divisional applications an or¬ 
der was issued November 25th, 1896, (Order 1111) which 
is applicable also to refiled applications, substitute appli¬ 
cations and continued applications, providing that: 

“The examiner will make an entry in red ink 
on the face of the file wrapper * * * of the 
serial number and filing date of the original ap¬ 
plication. The heading of the printed specifica¬ 
tion and the record of assignments will conform 
to this entry.” 

This order was reiterated substantially (providing for 
a different place on the file wrapper for such entry) by 
Order 1882 on December 3rd, 1909. The observance of 
this order is comparatively uniform throughoutThe Office, 
but occasionally an application is not so indorsed, 
and in one case lately a Certificate of Correction was 
necessitated by the failure of the examiner to make the 
proper indorsement of the parent case upon the file wrap¬ 
per of the divisional case, and in consequence thereof 
the patent issued to the inventor when it should have 
issued to the assignee of record in the parent case. 

The nomenclature of the different applications that 
“have been carved out of” the original case or contain 
only the same invention, has become somewhat confused 
owing to the decision in 1910 Ex Parte Kruse, 157 0. G., 
208, which is the foundation for designating an applica¬ 
tion as a “continuation in part:” 

“A subsequent application may, however, be a 
continuation of an older application, when the two 
have common subject matter, even though the 
later application may contain matter which is a 
departure from that which is described in the 


16 


original application. In such cases the applicant 
is entitled to the date of the original application 
for the subject matter which is common to both, 
and to the date of the latter application only for 
that matter which has been disclosed therein for 
the first time.” 

The question of ownership or title was not under con¬ 
sideration when this decision was made, but it will be 
evident that an application which is a “continuation in 
part” and contains matter not common to both cases, 
would not be so affected by an assignment of the parent 
case as to warrant the Office in issuing a patent upon 
such an application to the assignee. It is found that a 
number of such “continuation in part” applications are 
erroneously designated “continuations” only, and if such 
error be made in the indorsement on the file it is partic¬ 
ularly misleading in the issuance of the patent. Care 
should be particularly exercised to recite the fact whether 
the application be a continuation, or only a “continuation 
in part.” In fact it is believed that an indorsement on 
the file is unnecessary in the case of a “continuation in 
part,” such notation being made in the preamble to the 
specification only, and therefore should not appear in 
the heading to the printed patent, nor have any consid¬ 
eration regarding the title thereto, in the issuance of the 
patent. 

Therefore, it is most earnestly urged that the examiner 
acquaint himself with the assignment records, especially 
when such records have bearing upon the prosecution of 
the application under consideration, and any aid neces¬ 
sary for the examination of the records will be gladly 
furnished, by the Assignment Division. 




